Clinton Refuses To Say Whether She Believes This Constitutional Right Exists

Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton twice refused to say whether she believed that American citizens have the right to bear arms, and then launched into a list of anti-gun proposals that she favors that would completely destroy the the firearms industry in the United States.

The Chicago Tribune noted Clinton refused to answer whether she believed in the natural right to bear arms reflected in the Second Amendment.

Hillary Clinton declined to say Sunday whether she believes in a constitutional right to bear arms, possibly opening the door to a fresh round of attacks from Donald Trump, who has already accused the likely Democratic presidential nominee of wanting to “abolish” the Second Amendment.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Clinton deflected twice when asked whether she agrees with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court ruled in 2008 that the Constitution affords private citizens the right to keep firearms in their homes and that such possession need not be connected to military service.

AWR Hawkins then noted her immediate pivot to a list of gun control proposals designed to indefinitely suspend the ability of citizens to buy arms and drive the firearms industry bankrupt with frivolous lawsuits.

I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the “gun show loophole,” closing the “online loophole,” closing the so-called “Charleston loophole,” reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers.

The crippling effect of these gun controls is already evidenced in states like California, where comprehensive background checks — i.e., universal background checks — have been paired with gun registration and even confiscation laws. The latest California gun control to emerge from universal background checks is the push to implement background checks for ammunition purchasers — and Clinton supports the ammunition background checks.

Her push to reverse the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is all about enabling crime victims to sue gun makers and gun sellers for crimes committed with lawfully made and lawfully purchased firearms. Once the door to such suits is opened, it will not be long until America’s gun industry simply disappears. And as The Hill reported, this is why Bernie Sanders says Clinton’s gun control is all about “ending gun manufacturing in America.”

There is no “gun show loophole.”

There is no “online loophole.”

Gun dealers are federally licensed and must both keep a record of every transaction in a “blue blook” and conduct a NCIS background for every gun they sell, wherever and however they sell firearms. This includes sales in brick-and-mortar gun shops, sales at gun shows, and so-called “online sales,” which are actually sales where the gun is paid for online, and then shipped to a local dealer where the purchaser must pay a transfer fee and then pass a background check before taking possession of the firearm.

The so-called “Charleston loophole” is nothing more or an attempt to cover up government incompetence. The racist who murdered nine in a Charleston church was able to acquire his gun because a local law enforcement official failed to upload information to NICS that would have labeled the killer as a prohibited person. Clinton wants delays to be indefinite, denying citizens the right to bear arms while the government dawdles and fails to fix problems in the background check system.

Clinton’s “constitution killer,” however, is her plot to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits. Prior to the implementation of the PLCAA, gun control groups and personal injury attorneys looking for a payout were free to file lawsuits against gun shops and firearms manufacturers even when they followed the law 100% in selling firearms.

Under current law, firearms companies and gun dealers can face charges if they knowingly sell guns to criminals, sell defective firearms, or otherwise break very restrictive laws regarding the manufacturing, tracking and sale of guns. If Mrs. Clinton has her way, PLCAA will be undone, and gun companies will be the targets of dozens of frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt them.

Imagine that Ford manufactured a Mustang sports car in 2006, and that a Ford dealer in Minneapolis sold the car six months later in a legal transaction. That owner enjoyed the car from five years, then sold it in a legal purchase. The second person owned the car for four years, then sold it again, in another legal purchase to a third person. If this third person gets into a drunk driving accident, should the victim of the accident be able to sue Ford or the car dealer who first put the car on the market?

Of course not.

But Hillary Clinton wants to reverse PLCAA, and enable people to sue manufacturers and gun shops for firearms that were legally sold and have been on the market for years.  That’s utterly insane… unless your explicit goal is to sue the American firearms industry into bankruptcy. Add her desire to institute “Australian-style” gun bans and confiscation policies that target the most popular rifles, pistols, and shotguns sold and used in the United States, and you have the picture of a deranged woman intent on gutting the Second Amendment entirely.

Hillary Clinton has put her cards on the table.

She’s coming for your guns in every way possible.